Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
The core was compromised at the moment of impact. Everyone saw this live on National TV - The planes entered one side, and flames came out the other side. It went through the building, and through the core. At the moment of impact most of the elevators failed, sending some down to the bottom floor, and also sending a huge fireball down to the lobby that killed people.
|
The only part of the plane that could have compromised the core was the engines. The engines only severed a few of the fifty or so columns in the core or the building. We saw fuel ignited outside the building which also suntracts from the idea that all that fuel caused internal damage since it burned outside the shell of the buildings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
At some point in time, one of the floors failed and crashed down onto a floor below. The floor below was unable to instantly redistribute all of weight. The joints holding the floor were damaged by the impact, the fire, and the fact that the other shell was most likely bowing outwards.
|
Regardless, the lower floor would not cave in less than a tenth of a second. The 100 stories fell in ten seconds,which mean about ten floors per second. Ten floors in one second! That's impossible.
Stating things like "most likely" bowing out is also purely speculative. There's no indication of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Why does it surprise you so much that "large chunks" were throw from the wreckage? You understand that when the building fell, the debris field was easily 600 feet, hitting other buildings including WTC 7? The entrance to WTC7 was destroyed by the debris field. Even though the towers fell straight down for the most part, when it hit the bottom it had no place to go but out.
|
These pieces were hurled from the top, and weren't pushed by falling or tipping parts of the structure. If the collapse was genuinely gravity driven how could large portions be sent out so far?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
You seem to obsessed by typing, and it's generally assumed that the towers fell straight down. I've said this myself in the thread here. However, Saturday afternoon I was watching MSNBC and they were replaying the entire morning as it happened live. And I noticed as one of the towers fell, the top tipped.
|
Yes the top part for the first tower to fall tipped... so why didn't it end up on the ground? Instead it was reduced to powder like the rest of the building... how did that happen?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
At the same time, we can't really see a hole lot of the tower as it fell. We seem to accept to that the towers fell straight down, but between the flames from the fire, the cloud of dust from the building as it fell, and the dust from the bottom that rises up, we can't really see much.
|
We can't see much of the end of the falls true, but do we need to? Just seeing what there is to be seen tells us that the collapses weren't normal or attributable to regular sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
Your wrong. None of the floors support any of the floors above it. All of the floors are support by the outer walls and the inner core (both of which were comprised. The floors were suspended by the two. Each floor was meant to hold that floor and that floor only, and when the floor above it crashed down it wasn't able to support it.
|
Read the building collapse reports; they don't support your belief. Yes the floor suspension conception was an innovative approach to steel frame building construction but they didn't contribute to the building's "weakness" as you suggest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rochard
No, not really. All of the holes you and others point out can be quickly explained away.
The 9/11 Commission interviewed over one thousand people in ten countries.
They didn't follow up with anything because they submitted their report. They weren't set up to continue to debate this issue - if they did, they would still be debating today.
|
The "holes" can be rationalized away but no explained. Your holes can just as eaily be refuted.
The 9/11 commission excluded or omitted two thirds of its collected data, from what we can see from witness reports, much of it because it simply didn't follow their theory - which is what it was, since even the FBI have admitted they don't have the proof to attribute 9/11 to Bin Laden.